Play in the Gold Group at the Tennis Masters Cup Shanghai is now complete, and Novak Djokovic is the winner and in second is Nikolay Davydenko who clinched his semifinal place earlier today with a 6-3, 6-2 win over Juan Martin Del Potro.

Both Djokovic and Davydenko finished 2-1 (Djokovic lost today to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga for the third time in the last month) but Novak wins the group based on his win over the Russian head-to-head.

In the finals of the Red Group Friday, in perhaps the most anticipated match of the tournament thus far, Roger Federer will bid for a semifinal spot against Andy Murray. Federer, a four-time winner of the Masters Cup, must beat the Scot who really has little to play for having already qualified for the last four.

But Murray says against the World No. 2, he’ll give it his all.

“I try and beat Federer. You know, I mean, ideally I’d like to knock him out of the competition if I can. I’d rather not have to play him twice in one week, you know. He’s the best player ever.

Obviously there’s a lot more pressure on him to win than me. It will be the first time I’ve played him when I’ve not been under pressure, you know. If I can — I don’t know if I’ve won the group. I don’t even know how it works. I didn’t even know if I’d qualified yet, so…

If I’ve already won the group, or not, I guess I can almost decide, you know, do I want to play whoever the first in the other group or the second or whatever. You know, a lot of ways you could look at it.

But I plan on trying to win the match. I think if I win that one, I pretty much knock him out of the competition, ’cause I can’t see Stepanek beating Simon.”

But before the showcase match of the day, Gilles Simon and Radek Stepanek will meet with the Frenchman’s fortune really out of his hands and in Roger’s.

So on to the “What ifs”…

The way I see it is first Stepanek cannot qualify for the semifinals so he’s eliminated from any and all tiebreaker/qualification discussion.

Murray has qualified because Simon cannot pass him in sets won percentage (Murray is 4-1, Simon 2-3 and in a tie Murray has the H2H).

If Federer loses, Simon is the No. 2 for the group (he holds the H2H over Raja should Gilles himself lose), and he’ll play Djokovic Saturday (Murray would face Davydenko).

If both Federer and Simon win, then those two along with Murray will all be 2-1, and Federer wins the group because he’ll have the H2H over Murray (Simon cannot tie Federer in that case in sets won).

Confused yet? Well, what if Murray retires to Federer in the first set?? Okay, let’s just hope that doesn’t happen!

Bottom line (I think!), if Murray wins he’ll play Davydenko Saturday. If he loses he’ll play Djokovic and then may have to play Federer again in the final.

That said, I think Andy would much rather play Davydenko and then maybe Djokovic to win the title, than Djokovic followed by Federer. So I think Andy will make the effort and I’ll pick him to beat Roger.

Tough call Murray vs. Fed – Roger tends to raise his level when he needs to; he’s an expert at it. Plus, Murray’s in contention already, regardless. (With the exception of some kind of freakish withdrawal or something…)

However, the way Murray – and the Sean – puts it, it makes more sense for Murray to really go for it and try to knock out Fed now, so he doesn’t have to play him for the title, should that come to pass.

I agree that Murray would rather face Djoko than Fed for the title and the big fat cheque. Thus, I think this should be, in a number of ways, the match of the tournament.

The level at which Andy Murray played the 2nd set against Simon was exceptional. He’s been the best player ( in my opinion ) in this tournament so far.
Even Roger’s not liking his own chances against him, given his own condition at the moment.. Fed said “I hope i’ll make a miracle happen and get to the semi’s”.. I agree !

Murray seems to be the “master” here. easing through all his matches. I think he has a great chance. Also Djoko has been good. I think those two will play the final. Unfortunate that Fed has this back problem.

ATP says the schedule is not up for discussion! so much for being a players association. Btw, it wasn’t just Roddick talking about the schedule. Rafa, Blake and Fed have also talked about it. Apparently all to deaf ears!

Now that all of you are starting to round like Murray’s gonna win it, I’d root for Nole ! However I don’t want another defect of Fed by Murray! So GO FED GO,BEAT MURRAY in tomoro’s match ! And suppose Fed doesn’t make it,go all the way Novak,win the TMC !

Two metaphors come to mind after watching Davydenko today: dance and geometry. He literally waltzed his way up to the net today, small little sidesteps, 1-2-3, entailing a few shots, fully capitalizing on running his opponent all over the court, and then boom! He’s danced his way in and puts away the winner. And meanwhile he’s given Del Porto a high school geometry lesson on the angles and degrees of the entire court surface.

Two things that may/may not be potential deal breakers for Davy: his serve is not stellar; Del Potro couldn’t do much with it, but with experience he might’ve been able to do at least more. Davy missed a lot of first serves today. The other thing is this: what does it take to make Davy smile and show those dimples? He could show a little more charisma. Even after that performance, he does the perfunctory salute to the crowd, but there’s very little joy apparent. Sheesh. He seems so wooden. Does this affect his ability to win the big matches? His workman-like attitude? Agassi (the later incarnation) was all business on the court too, but afterwards there was always the big smile – the clear joy in playing and winning. I wish Davy would show a little of that – just a little.

Dumb TSN – showing none of Tsonga vs. Djoko so i don’t get to see two faves duke it out, alas.

I’ve made a longwinded point about this on the other thread. I’ll just say here that of course there is always room for reform in any arena. And the views of the players are always of interest – but are necessarily partial. At the end of the day, I am not that inclined to give that much weight to the views of those who are mega stars – with all that implies in terms of money and fame. You, basically, want to protect Nadal. I don’t think he needs protecting. He is a huge superstar. If he finds it all too much to handle, too bad for him. Having said that, I don’t blame him in the slightest for trying to ameliorate his conditions. We all like to try it on if we can, even in our own tiny little corners. Only natural. But let’s not be naive.

grendel,
If it was just Nadal, you could have said that I am protecting him. But look around. Show me one player that has not had a serious injury.

Why not protect the megastars? Arent’t those the ones that play day in and day out and make the sport exciting? Why not care about them and think of them as humans and not ATM machines? It is likes of Federer, Rafa, Roddick, Djoko, Tsoga, Roddick….who make the sport exciting and make the tickets sell.

Gans
I think in the other thread you asked for the channels showing the MS in USA.

The best way to watch the master series is to purchase the ATP TV. It is $70 for a whole year and you can watch all the master series and master cup. The streaming quality is excellent and if you have a cable, you can use your TV as a monitor.

Also from this year they will show all the non-master series matches too. ( no, I am not working for them!. :) )

Jane – I liked your image of dance and geometry. He’s some player, Davydenko. He really did give del Potro a “geometry lesson in the angles and degrees of the entire court surface”. I suspect the Argentine will prove a good pupil, and take his lesson to heart. He reacted well, didn’t he, to some atrocious line calls – a good temperament.

The comparison with Agassi is interesting. Agassi somehow, whilst “being all business on the court too” exuded a sort of dramatic intensity. His eyes seemed like magnets. You were always very conscious of him. One isn’t really all that much aware of Davydenko – just of his tennis. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? b.t.w., I think Davydenko’s serve is pretty good when it’s working.

That “wooden” business you allude to. You may have an important point. He’s the ultimate craftsman, excellent at what he does in every way, and you feel he takes a pride in what he does, and in a curiously old fashionned manner too. Stardom is just not his style. He is not a showman. He has no rapport with the crowd, and doesn’t wish to have. That isn’t his business. Maybe this is why he is a bit dull. He refuses to accept that, willy nilly, he is in the entertainment business. He has a job, he is damn good at it, and nobody has the right to expect anything else from him. So perhaps, as you imply – the “wooden” stuff – this inhibits the flow of adrenalin in the crucial stages of his matches. So he is unable to rise to the occasion, to damn well impose his will upon the situation, upon his opponent, upon himself. That would seem to be (he might think) how can we say, an overeaction, not at all the sort of thing appropriate to one who is, after all, a consummate craftsman. This usually doesn’t matter. His tremendous competence will carry him through even against the del Potros of this world. But he is somehow intimidated by, or over respectful to, those higher ranked than himself. He definitely has quite a rigid concept of rank. People should know their place. He, therefore, should know his. I can imagine that when Nadal waltzed into the field, beating the mighty Federer when he was only 17, Davydenko, at some level in his consciousness, deeply disapproved.

One thing is for sure. Whatever it is that has stopped Davydenko from winning a grand slam, and presumably will prevent him from ever getting one, it is not the lack of quality in his tennis.

Yes, but Zola come on, it’s Nadal you’re really concerned about. And injuries go with the terrain, you know. That sounds harsh I expect. Ah, life.

“Why not protect megastars?” you ask. Just because they are megastars! They don’t need protecting, dammit. You see, implicit in your comments is that these stars do what they do out of charity, and if we do not protect them, they’ll just – what, fade away?

But of course, they are driven by personal ambition, by other things too – love of the game, for instance, but they very definitely are not driven by concern for our enjoyment – except insofar as this boosts their own egos. And that’s fine. That’s what we are like. It works very well, and they get immense, some would say absurd, rewards.

Zola, the megastars came make their own schedules. No one puts a gun to their head and makes them play, yet they often overplay and blame the tour. And they can easily make up and fines down the road via appearances or even endorsements.

Yeah, Jane. I would agree, Davydenko is the best geometry player on the tour! The angles he creates at times are amazing. I wasn’t a believer a few years ago, and i changed my tune.

I think that’s the difference. To me they are not buggers or objects. I became interested in tennis because of likes of Sampras and Nadal and I want to see them play for a long time.

You see them as entertainment objects and I don’t. I think tennis lacks something when Hewitt or Safin or Haas can’t play.

Sean
I don’t agree with you. Again, same mentality. They get paid, so what the heck. No, they get fined if they miss master series and from necxt year they will get fined by ranking points as well.

A calendar that is There is about two months of time between Australian Open and IW, just because of AMerican College basketball and CBS coverge? Why not those buggers at CBS have to work for it? Why not push the tennis schedule back and spresd it with reasonable time to recover between the tournaments?

Just one more point here;
If it is Ok for the players to not to participate in the tournaments, then hopefuly we should not see complaints from writers or organizers or tennis critics about players withdrawing from a tournament. It can’t be both ways!

Zola, the problem is far, far broader than just CBS’s influence (or perceived influence) on Miami and IW.

If you were the Czar of the tennis, how would you change the calendar so both players and tournaments are happy? Almost an impossible task.

You talk about pushing the season back, but what then of Sydney, Melbourne, etc., which then would start in February. They’d take a hit because it’s no longer summer in Australia, and the kids would be in school.

Where all of this discussion regarding injuries will lead is anyone’s guess, however, one thing is clear, injuries will happen, whether we are athletic or sedentary. True, the athletes are more prone to injuries, but I can’t understand how a lengthy season, where tournaments are optional could be blamed for the injuries we see popping up. Take Davydenko for instance, who has played more tournaments than the Top 4, but he’s devoid of any serious injuries.

During Federer’s dominant years, 2004-2007, he played with nary an injury, 90-5 matches. How could this have happened? To begin with, Federer paced himself and has been selective with regard to which tournaments he played. Additionally, in the past there has not been much emphasis and/or grumblings by the players of yore, concerning the length of the season. They players played when they wanted to and vacationed when they chose.

The problem seems to stem from the younger breed of players who are impatient to get to the top of the rankings. They want everything like yesterday, and in order to achieve their goals and/or desires are burning themselves out in the process.

I agree with ATP not budging on the length of the season, and I maintain that it’s entirely up to the player to be judicial in his schedule selection. ATP and the schedule cannot or should not be blamed if a player throws caution to the wind and abuses his body. Our bodies are finely tuned and give off signals when we are placing too much stress on it. Consequently, it is up to the athlete to heed those signals and do what’s beneficial for his longevity in the sport.

Furthermore, why is there so much emphasis placed on what Roddick has to say? I remember just a little over a month ago, some wise sage was forecasting Roddick’s demise as a top 10 player “By the end of 2008, Roddick will be out of the top 10″. hence, isn’t it ludicrous to even mention Roddick in the same sentence as the “higher-ranked’ players? But oh, let me get this straight, when Roddick says something that could lend credence to or strengthen an argument, his statements are with merit and weighted.

well..somehow i see order being restored today with Fed beating Murray and qualifying for the semis.

It will be 1st seed vs the 4th(Davy) and 3rd(Murray) vs 2nd(Djoker) in the semi finals.

Its a very very huge task for Fed with the form that he is in.. but then we have seem him do miracles before. He should treat this match like a quarter-final knock-out.. where his opponent will probably save himself for his semifinals in-case it goes to a third set.

From the way I see it, the whole calendar, surfaces, TV,and all and sundry should be changed around and/or amended and accommodation made because of just a couple of or maybe just one player. The American hardocurts should be ripped up and clay inserted and between Wimby and the US Open Series, grass should be grown and the US Open should be played on half clay and half grass. The indoor season should be scrapped and then it’s vacation time until the AO. And, who knows, maybe the AO’s surface could also be changed to clay. Hence, we’ll just have to contend with clay and grass. But then, we’ll have a huge problem of the scarcity of the little green stuff being in short supply. And then enters, another set of grumblings — the athletes are poverty stricken for lack of earnings. Per Dr. Death, “show me the money”. The money is where the sponsors are, and the sponsors want variety. Therefore, let’s replace the clay and grass with hardcourts, lengthen the season, because the athletes are starving, and we’ve come full circle. By then the few megastars will have retired.

And to follow-up, in order to shorten the tennis season, events must be removed. It’s that simple. So who goes, who stays? Do the smaller prize money tournaments take the fall? Or maybe the bigger ones? Maybe there’s too many in the U.S.?

And with fewer events, won’t the lower ranked players – many of whom accumulate a majority of their points at the Newports and Aucklands – be upset?

The lower-ranked players are incidental in the grand scheme of things. It’s only the megastars or one megastar that matters. Who gives a hoot for the lower-ranked players? They are just there to make up the draw, and are incidental sub-humans. The real players are the top ? Put the poor lower-ranked players to hand the negastars their towels, lest they have to walk a few yards and run down the balls. In essence what we’ll have is a tournament consisting of three days play for 2 hours per day. — a QF, SF and a final, played between the megastars, while the poor nonentities just fetch balls and towels. With this scanario there shouldn’t be any injuries or lengthy season. What a joke!

This discussion on the llength of the season, Miami, IW and the compressed clay season was deliberated at length and ad nauseam, when Nadal got blisters in Rome. We’ve come full circle again. I suppose this will be the agenda everytime there’s an injury.

Who gives a hoot for the lower-ranked players? They are just there to make up the draw, and are incidental sub-humans.

this, alas, is true. case in point: clement vs. schuttler in wimby this year. the commentators pretty much ignored this match and were already talking about the fed/nadal final inevitability. never mind that schuttler still had to play clement and nadal before nadal was in the final.

so, two matches were already a done deal for most people. i don’t even think there was much discussion here about that match so we’re in the same boat; give us the stars.

I have to agree with Von, Sean, Grendel, etc on scheduling issue. While no schedules are perfect and complains have been there forever, the post-85 young superstars are really making it too big a deal to their own advantages. Back in 1990 Paris Open final, Becker could take over no.1 spot for the first time in his career if he beats Edberg. 3 games into the match, he had to default from a thigh injury. So, year end fatigue/injuries are nothing new. Nadal has an advantage that he usually does NOT have lots of points to defend during year end indoor seasons. So it’s a good time to take break and re-group. YEC is just an icing on cake if one’s secured no.1. Federer complained maybe once or twice about schedule. But most of the time he said it’s about pacing your own schedule. He too got injured often 2nd half of year: 2004, 2005, and this year. He can afford to rest in 04 and 05, but not this year. We haven’t heard much complain from him about schedule though, in Paris and Shanghai. It’s just bad luck that he got injuries and sickness. That’s part of pro tour. It’s only this year 2008 that Nadal’s hometown event Barcelona was sandwiched btw Monte Carlo and Roma TMS due to Olympics. We heard tons of complains from team Nadal. Then I realized that Fed’s Basel Indoor has been sandwitched btw Madrid and Paris every year lately. I don’t remember Fed complained much. It’s all up to megastar’s own choice. No gun pointing. Period.

Here in Shanghai TMC, on Monday I was told at stadium parking lot by scalper that Fed puuled out and he could buy my ticket. I told him I still want to enjoy Andy vs. Andy… local paper next day had it that all foreign fans in Shanghai went to Qizhong to cheer up for Roger, in addition to frenzy Chinese Fed fans. NO wonder ticket scalpers were spreading rumors all the time that Fed’s pulling out — so that they can buy the fed-match tickets cheap and re-sell them for good profit! It went cray by Wednesday coz even Fed’s driver said Fed’s pulling out and it went on internet news. Fans reported from Stadium that Stepanek was practicing. In the end, Roddick gave a presser and Fed clarified that he’d play. There’s a Chinese sign saying “Marry me please, Fed” during Fed-Step match :-)).

Oh well, Fed’s done enough to secure his year end no.2 and to make the last Shanghai TMC exciting. The concensus among locals now are that he should pull out to take care himself for 2009. Shanghai does feel privileged to have the support of Roger Federer.

Standings are determined by: 1) Number of wins; 2) Number of matches; 3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records; 4) In three-players-ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won; 5) Steering Committee decision.

Does this means that in a 3-way tie, the percentage of sets won method is used to knock out one player, and then head-to-head is used for the remaining two players?

And does this means percentage of games won is only used if 3 players are tied on percentage of sets won?

If both Federer and Simon lose, then we have a 3 way tie with Federer/Simon/Stapanek, with each having won one game.

Does this mean set win percentage would be used? In which case Federer would also go through because Simon would have the worst set win percentage record of the three no matter how many sets either Simon or Federer pick up in their last game.

The way I see it is the only way Federer won’t get through is if he loses and Simon wins. If Federer loses and Simon loses, Federer still gets through… or am I smoking too much crack?

This discussion started first when some said that it is because the (injured) players have played too many tournaments. They should have played less.

I posted somewhere here or on the other thread that it is not true. The top ranked players in fat play in less number of tournaments than lower ranked ones.

Then the argument shifted to “they don’t have to play ”
The answer to that is that there are 8 obligatory Master series tournaments ( 6 of them on hard courts) and 4 grand slams ( 2 on hard courts) that they have to play. They can also play 5 more for ranking points. Total of 19. But these are not spread equally during the calendar year. one major reason is timing of IW and Miami.
there are monetory and ranking points fines for players who don’t show up ( not to mention the comments from tennis critics!)

Then it was” they get paid, what the heck, let them work for it”. That is a self-redundant argument too. So, let the season be shorter so that they get paid less!

There is one point that is valid and can be discussed and that is the difference between lower-ranked and higher-ranked players. It is true that those who go deeper in a tournament suffer more physically and get hurt by back to back tournaments. Cutting the season short can hurt those lower-ranked players who seek more ranking points or a title.

It is something that maybe ATP can work on. Maybe more flexibility for the higher-ranked players in master series. For example number of matches played in master series can be a criterion. If a player reaches a limit, he can be exempt from playing one obligatory tournament.

The other solution could be to end the master series a bit earlier and other tournaments can be played.

I think there can be as many tournaments and master series as ATP wants. But the time betwen the tournaments and also the number of obligatory tournaments should change and perhaps be scaled by ranking or number of matches played.

“I think that’s the difference. To me they are not buggers or objects. I became interested in tennis because of likes of Sampras and Nadal and I want to see them play for a long time.

You see them as entertainment objects and I don’t. I think tennis lacks something when Hewitt or Safin or Haas can’t play.”

Zola, you are so literal minded sometimes.”To me they are not buggers”. Honestly! What can one say? “You see them as entertainment objects”. Actually, rather less than you, I would guess. Entertainment is part of it, silly to deny. The point you make about pay (which could be proportionate to amount played) is not only irrelevant but misleading. The megastars make the real money off the court.

Yes, I too am sad about Haas and Safin – again, much more than you, I suspect. But that is life. This is the point. You want to wrap your hero in cottonwool and preserve him for ever. I disagree absolutely with this philosophy, and that’s essentially where we differ.

Nor is it so clear who is being hard hearted or soft. Because in the end, you are seeking to further your own gratification. To me, that is obvious. But I expect a decent argument could be made that I am doing the same, only I can’t see it. One tends to be blind to one’s own delusions.

My whole world is shaking finding Fed in trouble and people here are busy discussing about length of the tennis season ! I think that we shouldn’t overburden ourselves with the duty of fixing tennis season’s length ! ;-) We are already busy people ! ;-)

Kimmi, I’v read it a 100 times about Fed telling of being in need of a miracle to beat Murray today,but I in my previous post while replying,was referring to Grendel’s post where it was written within the bracket ‘aside from against Nadal on clay’ !

Federer should have won that match in straight sets after climbing back up in the second, even against Murray. I always thought his decline would be a gradual process over several years, but Fed’s “tennis level” has taken a colossal nosedive since the beginning of this year. Matches he should have won, he lost. It’s not the magic Fed we’d been appreciating (proof of how tough it’s been to do what he does). His weapons have been betraying him too often. I know much can attributed to illness/injury at particular periods of this season. At just 27, is this a consequence of cramming so much success within such a relatively brief timespan, in regard to back problems? Is it now taking its toll? OR, is this just a bit more of a lull? I guess I too have been spoiled by the past few years, like many.

Congrats to Murray. The heir to the throne???

I’m going to go dunk my head in a vat of liquid nitrogen. Good-bye, world.

Oh no ferix, please wait before you start your nitrogen treatment! May be friends like me are willing to join you ! And yes,please arrange a bucketful of liquid nitrogen for me too! We can say goodbye to the world then !

“If both Federer and Simon win, then those two along with Murray will all be 2-1, and Federer wins the group because he’ll have the H2H over Murray (Simon cannot tie Federer in that case in sets won).”

In the context of the comment you have quoted,h2h advantage refers to the result of the group match between the two players.The ‘career’ h2h-which is what you mean in your query- is also considered as a tie-breaker but it is the last criterion used before the so called steering committee comes into play.

In the comment you have quoted,h2h refers to the result of the group match between the concerned players.”Career” h2h-which is what you mean in your query-is also considered as a tie-breaker but it is the last criterion used before the so called steering committee comes into play.